Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.817 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68) | 0.730 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.154 | -0.431, 0.175 | 0.408 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.008 | 0.139 | -0.265, 0.281 | 0.955 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.311 | 0.201 | -0.082, 0.705 | 0.123 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.381 | -0.826, 0.666 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.176 | 0.265 | -0.696, 0.344 | 0.507 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.01 | 0.384 | 0.262, 1.77 | 0.009 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.505 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.715 | -1.06, 1.74 | 0.639 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.772 | 0.431 | -0.073, 1.62 | 0.075 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.28 | 0.624 | 0.059, 2.51 | 0.041 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.186 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.263 | -0.483, 0.547 | 0.903 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.010 | 0.186 | -0.373, 0.354 | 0.958 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.359 | 0.268 | -0.168, 0.885 | 0.183 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.293 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.415 | -0.468, 1.16 | 0.407 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.338 | 0.276 | -0.203, 0.879 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.480 | 0.399 | -0.302, 1.26 | 0.231 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.546, 0.914 | 0.622 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.332 | 0.229 | -0.117, 0.781 | 0.148 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.370 | 0.332 | -0.280, 1.02 | 0.266 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.215 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.304 | -0.988, 0.204 | 0.198 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.055 | 0.229 | -0.395, 0.504 | 0.812 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.811 | 0.332 | 0.161, 1.46 | 0.015 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.873 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.234 | -3.71, 1.13 | 0.298 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.56 | 0.726 | -2.98, -0.136 | 0.033 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.130 | 1.051 | -1.93, 2.19 | 0.902 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.409 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.579 | -1.14, 1.13 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.364 | 0.375 | -0.371, 1.10 | 0.333 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.193 | 0.543 | -0.871, 1.26 | 0.722 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.513 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.725 | -0.581, 2.26 | 0.248 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.205 | 0.463 | -0.704, 1.11 | 0.659 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.551 | 0.671 | -0.764, 1.87 | 0.413 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.646 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.913 | -0.422, 3.16 | 0.135 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 0.537 | 0.116, 2.22 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.031 | 0.777 | -1.49, 1.56 | 0.968 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.334 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.472 | -0.573, 1.28 | 0.456 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.440 | 0.273 | -0.096, 0.975 | 0.109 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.026 | 0.396 | -0.801, 0.750 | 0.948 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.545 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.771 | -1.51, 1.51 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.850 | 0.468 | -0.068, 1.77 | 0.071 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.198 | 0.678 | -1.13, 1.53 | 0.771 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.629 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.890 | -1.42, 2.06 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.16 | 0.520 | 0.140, 2.18 | 0.027 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.301 | 0.754 | -1.78, 1.18 | 0.690 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.391 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.553 | -0.324, 1.84 | 0.170 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.805 | 0.362 | 0.096, 1.52 | 0.027 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.625 | 0.524 | -0.402, 1.65 | 0.234 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.251 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.355 | 0.048, 1.44 | 0.037 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.174 | 0.232 | -0.629, 0.281 | 0.453 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.516 | 0.336 | -0.143, 1.17 | 0.127 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.285 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.403 | -0.398, 1.18 | 0.331 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.327 | 0.255 | -0.173, 0.827 | 0.201 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.366 | 0.369 | -0.357, 1.09 | 0.322 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.295 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.417 | -0.121, 1.51 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.257 | 0.249 | -0.232, 0.746 | 0.304 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.317 | 0.361 | -0.391, 1.02 | 0.382 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.539 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.762 | -0.406, 2.58 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.595 | 0.436 | -0.259, 1.45 | 0.174 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.671 | 0.631 | -0.565, 1.91 | 0.289 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.819 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.159 | -3.49, 1.05 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.643 | 0.665 | -1.95, 0.660 | 0.335 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.06 | 0.963 | -3.95, -0.171 | 0.034 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.449 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.635 | -0.236, 2.25 | 0.113 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.306 | 0.354 | -0.389, 1.00 | 0.390 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.683 | 0.514 | -0.324, 1.69 | 0.185 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.365 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.516 | -0.004, 2.02 | 0.052 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.435 | 0.320 | -0.191, 1.06 | 0.175 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.454 | 0.463 | -0.453, 1.36 | 0.328 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.776 | 27.6, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.097 | -0.134, 4.17 | 0.067 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.740 | 0.614 | -0.465, 1.94 | 0.230 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.13 | 0.890 | -0.614, 2.88 | 0.206 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.140 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.198 | -0.459, 0.315 | 0.716 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.189 | 0.165 | -0.512, 0.133 | 0.252 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.194 | 0.238 | -0.272, 0.660 | 0.415 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.310 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.439 | -0.140, 1.58 | 0.102 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.724 | 0.336 | 0.066, 1.38 | 0.032 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.732 | 0.485 | -1.68, 0.218 | 0.133 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.380 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.538 | -0.590, 1.52 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.529 | 0.363 | -0.182, 1.24 | 0.147 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.375 | 0.525 | -0.655, 1.40 | 0.476 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.621 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.879 | -0.538, 2.91 | 0.179 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.26 | 0.618 | 0.045, 2.47 | 0.044 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.367 | 0.894 | -2.12, 1.38 | 0.682 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.405 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.573 | -0.594, 1.65 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.744 | 0.349 | 0.060, 1.43 | 0.034 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.159 | 0.505 | -0.832, 1.15 | 0.754 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.226 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.320 | -0.635, 0.619 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.173 | 0.258 | -0.333, 0.679 | 0.503 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.654 | 0.373 | -0.076, 1.38 | 0.081 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.275 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.388 | -0.849, 0.673 | 0.821 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.438 | 0.288 | -1.00, 0.125 | 0.129 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.655 | 0.416 | -1.47, 0.160 | 0.117 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.326 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.461 | -0.679, 1.13 | 0.627 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.404 | 0.282 | -0.957, 0.150 | 0.154 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.742 | 0.409 | -1.54, 0.059 | 0.071 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.471 | -1.00, 0.843 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.656 | 0.287 | -1.22, -0.095 | 0.023 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.193 | 0.415 | -1.01, 0.621 | 0.643 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.335 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.473 | -0.520, 1.34 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.451 | 0.285 | -1.01, 0.108 | 0.116 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.577 | 0.413 | -1.39, 0.234 | 0.165 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.936 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.324 | -2.04, 3.15 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.49 | 0.729 | -2.92, -0.065 | 0.042 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.46 | 1.056 | -3.53, 0.605 | 0.167 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(412) = 29.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(412) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28], t(412) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 6.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.70], t(412) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(412) = 66.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(412) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.34], t(412) = -0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [0.26, 1.77], t(412) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.09, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(412) = 58.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.74], t(412) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.62], t(412) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.06, 2.51], t(412) = 2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.01, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(412) = 62.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55], t(412) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -9.71e-03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.35], t(412) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -4.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.88], t(412) = 1.34, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.76], t(412) = 58.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.16], t(412) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.88], t(412) = 1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.26], t(412) = 1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(412) = 49.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(412) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.78], t(412) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.02], t(412) = 1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(412) = 46.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(412) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.50], t(412) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.16, 1.46], t(412) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.07, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.79, 33.21], t(412) = 36.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.71, 1.13], t(412) = -1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-2.98, -0.14], t(412) = -2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.19], t(412) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(412) = 53.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(412) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.10], t(412) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.26], t(412) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(412) = 47.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(412) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.11], t(412) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.87], t(412) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.93], t(412) = 30.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.16], t(412) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [0.12, 2.22], t(412) = 2.18, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.56], t(412) = 0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = 4.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(412) = 31.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(412) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.98], t(412) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.75], t(412) = -0.06, p = 0.948; Std. beta = -6.92e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.20], t(412) = 27.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.14e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(412) = -2.77e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.11e-15, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.77], t(412) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.53], t(412) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(412) = 34.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(412) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.14, 2.18], t(412) = 2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.02, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.18], t(412) = -0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(412) = 41.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(412) = 1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.10, 1.52], t(412) = 2.22, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.02, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.65], t(412) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(412) = 52.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(412) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.28], t(412) = -0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.17], t(412) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(412) = 58.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(412) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.83], t(412) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.09], t(412) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(412) = 42.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(412) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.75], t(412) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.02], t(412) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(412) = 54.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(412) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.45], t(412) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.91], t(412) = 1.06, p = 0.287; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(412) = 34.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(412) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.66], t(412) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.06, 95% CI [-3.95, -0.17], t(412) = -2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.42, -0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(412) = 30.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.25], t(412) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.00], t(412) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.69], t(412) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.61, 16.04], t(412) = 41.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-4.26e-03, 2.02], t(412) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.03e-03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.06], t(412) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.36], t(412) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.65, 30.69], t(412) = 37.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 4.17], t(412) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.94], t(412) = 1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.88], t(412) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(412) = 91.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(412) = -0.36, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.13], t(412) = -1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.66], t(412) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(412) = 46.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(412) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.07, 1.38], t(412) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.02, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.22], t(412) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.90], t(412) = 34.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.52], t(412) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.24], t(412) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.40], t(412) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.29, 28.73], t(412) = 44.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.91], t(412) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [0.04, 2.47], t(412) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [6.40e-03, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.12, 1.38], t(412) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(412) = 46.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(412) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.06, 1.43], t(412) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.15], t(412) = 0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(412) = 63.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.62], t(412) = -0.02, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.68], t(412) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.38], t(412) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(412) = 42.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(412) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.13], t(412) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.16], t(412) = -1.57, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(412) = 31.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.13], t(412) = 0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.15], t(412) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.06], t(412) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(412) = 30.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(412) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.09], t(412) = -2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.33, -0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.62], t(412) = -0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(412) = 26.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(412) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.11], t(412) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.23], t(412) = -1.40, p = 0.163; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(412) = 31.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.15], t(412) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-2.92, -0.06], t(412) = -2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, -6.17e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.46, 95% CI [-3.53, 0.60], t(412) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,335.106 | 1,347.213 | -664.553 | 1,329.106 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,336.260 | 1,360.473 | -662.130 | 1,324.260 | 4.846 | 3 | 0.183 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,030.888 | 2,042.995 | -1,012.444 | 2,024.888 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,026.947 | 2,051.160 | -1,007.474 | 2,014.947 | 9.941 | 3 | 0.019 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,529.869 | 2,541.976 | -1,261.935 | 2,523.869 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,512.115 | 2,536.328 | -1,250.057 | 2,500.115 | 23.755 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,718.856 | 1,730.963 | -856.428 | 1,712.856 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,721.204 | 1,745.417 | -854.602 | 1,709.204 | 3.652 | 3 | 0.302 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,090.297 | 2,102.404 | -1,042.149 | 2,084.297 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,085.277 | 2,109.489 | -1,036.638 | 2,073.277 | 11.021 | 3 | 0.012 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,978.110 | 1,990.216 | -986.055 | 1,972.110 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,972.899 | 1,997.112 | -980.449 | 1,960.899 | 11.211 | 3 | 0.011 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,867.526 | 1,879.632 | -930.763 | 1,861.526 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,860.448 | 1,884.661 | -924.224 | 1,848.448 | 13.078 | 3 | 0.004 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,964.299 | 2,976.405 | -1,479.149 | 2,958.299 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,961.186 | 2,985.399 | -1,474.593 | 2,949.186 | 9.113 | 3 | 0.028 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,354.035 | 2,366.141 | -1,174.017 | 2,348.035 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,357.055 | 2,381.268 | -1,172.527 | 2,345.055 | 2.980 | 3 | 0.395 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,539.965 | 2,552.072 | -1,266.983 | 2,533.965 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,541.119 | 2,565.332 | -1,264.560 | 2,529.119 | 4.846 | 3 | 0.183 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,714.756 | 2,726.862 | -1,354.378 | 2,708.756 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,709.315 | 2,733.527 | -1,348.657 | 2,697.315 | 11.441 | 3 | 0.010 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,151.773 | 2,163.880 | -1,072.887 | 2,145.773 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,152.616 | 2,176.829 | -1,070.308 | 2,140.616 | 5.157 | 3 | 0.161 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,579.144 | 2,591.251 | -1,286.572 | 2,573.144 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,577.470 | 2,601.683 | -1,282.735 | 2,565.470 | 7.674 | 3 | 0.053 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,687.374 | 2,699.480 | -1,340.687 | 2,681.374 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,686.029 | 2,710.242 | -1,337.015 | 2,674.029 | 7.344 | 3 | 0.062 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,337.159 | 2,349.266 | -1,165.580 | 2,331.159 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,321.453 | 2,345.666 | -1,154.726 | 2,309.453 | 21.706 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,954.918 | 1,967.025 | -974.459 | 1,948.918 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,950.824 | 1,975.037 | -969.412 | 1,938.824 | 10.094 | 3 | 0.018 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,051.142 | 2,063.248 | -1,022.571 | 2,045.142 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,047.081 | 2,071.294 | -1,017.540 | 2,035.081 | 10.061 | 3 | 0.018 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,062.944 | 2,075.050 | -1,028.472 | 2,056.944 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,059.110 | 2,083.323 | -1,023.555 | 2,047.110 | 9.834 | 3 | 0.020 |
els | null | 3 | 2,556.310 | 2,568.416 | -1,275.155 | 2,550.310 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,549.772 | 2,573.985 | -1,268.886 | 2,537.772 | 12.537 | 3 | 0.006 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,913.384 | 2,925.491 | -1,453.692 | 2,907.384 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,900.933 | 2,925.146 | -1,444.466 | 2,888.933 | 18.451 | 3 | 0.000 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,395.363 | 2,407.470 | -1,194.682 | 2,389.363 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,389.629 | 2,413.842 | -1,188.815 | 2,377.629 | 11.734 | 3 | 0.008 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,256.306 | 2,268.413 | -1,125.153 | 2,250.306 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,248.042 | 2,272.255 | -1,118.021 | 2,236.042 | 14.265 | 3 | 0.003 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,856.852 | 2,868.958 | -1,425.426 | 2,850.852 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,848.104 | 2,872.317 | -1,418.052 | 2,836.104 | 14.748 | 3 | 0.002 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,520.089 | 1,532.196 | -757.045 | 1,514.089 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,524.759 | 1,548.972 | -756.379 | 1,512.759 | 1.331 | 3 | 0.722 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,170.834 | 2,182.941 | -1,082.417 | 2,164.834 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,170.962 | 2,195.175 | -1,079.481 | 2,158.962 | 5.872 | 3 | 0.118 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,310.026 | 2,322.132 | -1,152.013 | 2,304.026 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,307.053 | 2,331.266 | -1,147.526 | 2,295.053 | 8.973 | 3 | 0.030 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,730.238 | 2,742.344 | -1,362.119 | 2,724.238 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,728.702 | 2,752.915 | -1,358.351 | 2,716.702 | 7.536 | 3 | 0.057 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,335.284 | 2,347.391 | -1,164.642 | 2,329.284 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,329.794 | 2,354.007 | -1,158.897 | 2,317.794 | 11.490 | 3 | 0.009 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,924.734 | 1,936.840 | -959.367 | 1,918.734 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,920.413 | 1,944.626 | -954.207 | 1,908.413 | 10.320 | 3 | 0.016 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,070.317 | 2,082.424 | -1,032.159 | 2,064.317 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,060.480 | 2,084.693 | -1,024.240 | 2,048.480 | 15.837 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,160.406 | 2,172.512 | -1,077.203 | 2,154.406 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,149.712 | 2,173.925 | -1,068.856 | 2,137.712 | 16.694 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,173.139 | 2,185.245 | -1,083.569 | 2,167.139 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,166.017 | 2,190.230 | -1,077.009 | 2,154.017 | 13.122 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,176.001 | 2,188.107 | -1,085.000 | 2,170.001 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,167.621 | 2,191.833 | -1,077.810 | 2,155.621 | 14.380 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,012.603 | 3,024.710 | -1,503.302 | 3,006.603 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,999.916 | 3,024.129 | -1,493.958 | 2,987.916 | 18.687 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.22 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.22 | 0.408 | 0.132 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 88 | 3.21 ± 1.20 | -0.008 | 80 | 3.39 ± 1.20 | -0.329 | 0.322 | -0.189 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.01 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.01 | 0.834 | 0.044 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 88 | 17.70 ± 2.82 | 0.098 | 80 | 18.64 ± 2.79 | -0.463 | 0.032 | -0.517 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.65 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.65 | 0.639 | -0.115 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 88 | 30.46 ± 5.18 | -0.264 | 80 | 32.08 ± 5.09 | -0.704 | 0.042 | -0.555 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.08 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.08 | 0.903 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 88 | 11.61 ± 1.95 | 0.008 | 80 | 12.00 ± 1.93 | -0.275 | 0.194 | -0.308 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.28 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.28 | 0.407 | -0.183 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 88 | 17.52 ± 3.05 | -0.180 | 80 | 18.35 ± 3.01 | -0.436 | 0.079 | -0.439 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.622 | -0.119 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 88 | 13.48 ± 2.71 | -0.214 | 80 | 14.03 ± 2.66 | -0.453 | 0.182 | -0.357 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.40 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.40 | 0.198 | 0.249 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 88 | 10.01 ± 2.29 | -0.035 | 80 | 10.43 ± 2.27 | -0.551 | 0.234 | -0.266 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.76 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.76 | 0.298 | 0.262 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 88 | 29.94 ± 8.92 | 0.318 | 80 | 28.78 ± 8.74 | 0.291 | 0.396 | 0.236 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.58 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.58 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 88 | 22.43 ± 4.25 | -0.143 | 80 | 22.61 ± 4.18 | -0.219 | 0.776 | -0.073 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.73 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.73 | 0.248 | -0.267 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 88 | 24.71 ± 5.30 | -0.065 | 80 | 26.10 ± 5.22 | -0.240 | 0.088 | -0.442 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.22 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.22 | 0.135 | -0.377 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 88 | 20.83 ± 6.60 | -0.322 | 80 | 22.23 ± 6.47 | -0.330 | 0.166 | -0.386 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.73 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.73 | 0.456 | -0.191 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 88 | 11.09 ± 3.40 | -0.238 | 80 | 11.41 ± 3.33 | -0.224 | 0.531 | -0.177 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.09 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.09 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 88 | 15.98 ± 5.60 | -0.268 | 80 | 16.18 ± 5.49 | -0.331 | 0.817 | -0.062 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.03 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.03 | 0.719 | -0.091 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 88 | 22.71 ± 6.42 | -0.330 | 80 | 22.73 ± 6.30 | -0.244 | 0.985 | -0.005 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.37 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.37 | 0.170 | -0.309 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 88 | 16.98 ± 4.06 | -0.327 | 80 | 18.37 ± 4.00 | -0.581 | 0.027 | -0.563 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.81 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.81 | 0.037 | -0.472 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 88 | 12.99 ± 2.61 | 0.111 | 80 | 14.25 ± 2.57 | -0.216 | 0.002 | -0.799 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.19 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.19 | 0.331 | -0.227 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 88 | 17.09 ± 2.94 | -0.189 | 80 | 17.85 ± 2.89 | -0.401 | 0.093 | -0.439 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.30 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.30 | 0.096 | -0.413 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 88 | 12.67 ± 3.02 | -0.152 | 80 | 13.68 ± 2.96 | -0.340 | 0.029 | -0.600 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.03 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.03 | 0.155 | -0.370 | ||
els | 2nd | 88 | 29.76 ± 5.49 | -0.202 | 80 | 31.52 ± 5.37 | -0.430 | 0.037 | -0.598 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.16 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.16 | 0.295 | 0.271 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 88 | 27.24 ± 8.34 | 0.143 | 80 | 23.96 ± 8.17 | 0.602 | 0.011 | 0.729 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 5.02 | 125 | 14.85 ± 5.02 | 0.113 | -0.422 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 88 | 14.15 ± 4.55 | -0.128 | 80 | 15.84 ± 4.46 | -0.413 | 0.016 | -0.707 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.08 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.08 | 0.052 | -0.465 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 88 | 15.76 ± 3.76 | -0.201 | 80 | 17.23 ± 3.69 | -0.411 | 0.011 | -0.675 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.67 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.67 | 0.067 | -0.486 | ||
shs | 2nd | 88 | 29.91 ± 7.88 | -0.178 | 80 | 33.05 ± 7.71 | -0.451 | 0.009 | -0.759 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.56 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.56 | 0.716 | 0.063 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 88 | 12.61 ± 1.51 | 0.166 | 80 | 12.73 ± 1.50 | -0.005 | 0.600 | -0.107 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.47 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.47 | 0.102 | -0.313 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 88 | 15.08 ± 3.31 | -0.314 | 80 | 15.07 ± 3.28 | 0.004 | 0.980 | 0.005 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.25 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.25 | 0.389 | -0.188 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 88 | 13.68 ± 3.97 | -0.214 | 80 | 14.52 ± 3.91 | -0.366 | 0.169 | -0.340 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.95 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.95 | 0.179 | -0.281 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 88 | 28.77 ± 6.53 | -0.298 | 80 | 29.58 ± 6.45 | -0.211 | 0.415 | -0.194 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.53 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.53 | 0.357 | -0.223 | ||
empower | 2nd | 88 | 19.59 ± 4.16 | -0.315 | 80 | 20.28 ± 4.08 | -0.382 | 0.281 | -0.291 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.53 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.53 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 88 | 14.53 ± 2.43 | -0.097 | 80 | 15.18 ± 2.42 | -0.465 | 0.086 | -0.364 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.07 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.07 | 0.821 | 0.045 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 88 | 11.35 ± 2.91 | 0.223 | 80 | 10.61 ± 2.88 | 0.555 | 0.098 | 0.377 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.64 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.64 | 0.627 | -0.117 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 88 | 10.00 ± 3.35 | 0.211 | 80 | 9.48 ± 3.29 | 0.599 | 0.313 | 0.271 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.041 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 88 | 9.52 ± 3.42 | 0.338 | 80 | 9.25 ± 3.36 | 0.438 | 0.602 | 0.141 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.389 | -0.211 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 88 | 8.26 ± 3.43 | 0.234 | 80 | 8.09 ± 3.37 | 0.532 | 0.748 | 0.087 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.47 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.47 | 0.677 | -0.112 | ||
sss | 2nd | 88 | 27.80 ± 9.48 | 0.304 | 80 | 26.88 ± 9.27 | 0.602 | 0.529 | 0.186 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(373.96) = -0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)
2st
t(410.89) = 0.99, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.55)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(317.60) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(391.45) = 2.16, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.79)
ras_confidence
1st
t(297.76) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)
2st
t(372.39) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.18)
ras_willingness
1st
t(319.71) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.55)
2st
t(392.91) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.98)
ras_goal
1st
t(310.48) = 0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.16)
2st
t(385.82) = 1.76, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.74)
ras_reliance
1st
t(300.03) = 0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(375.16) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.37)
ras_domination
1st
t(331.93) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)
2st
t(399.78) = 1.19, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.11)
symptom
1st
t(294.93) = -1.04, p = 0.298, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.14)
2st
t(368.69) = -0.85, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.84 to 1.52)
slof_work
1st
t(306.67) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)
2st
t(382.29) = 0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.46)
slof_relationship
1st
t(304.86) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(380.48) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.99)
satisfaction
1st
t(294.86) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.17)
2st
t(368.59) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.58 to 3.38)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(293.30) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)
2st
t(366.42) = 0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.35)
mhc_social
1st
t(298.62) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.52)
2st
t(373.45) = 0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.88)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(294.34) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(367.88) = 0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.95)
resilisnce
1st
t(308.21) = 1.37, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)
2st
t(383.77) = 2.23, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.61)
social_provision
1st
t(307.94) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(383.51) = 3.15, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (0.47 to 2.05)
els_value_living
1st
t(303.56) = 0.97, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)
2st
t(379.12) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.64)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(296.75) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)
2st
t(371.09) = 2.19, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.92)
els
1st
t(291.94) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)
2st
t(364.45) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.11 to 3.41)
social_connect
1st
t(292.36) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)
2st
t(365.06) = -2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-5.78 to -0.77)
shs_agency
1st
t(289.71) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.26)
2st
t(361.05) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.06)
shs_pathway
1st
t(300.76) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.02)
2st
t(376.01) = 2.54, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.33 to 2.59)
shs
1st
t(290.00) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.14 to 4.18)
2st
t(361.50) = 2.62, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.78 to 5.51)
esteem
1st
t(353.78) = -0.36, p = 0.716, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)
2st
t(407.26) = 0.52, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.58)
mlq_search
1st
t(334.55) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(400.95) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.99)
mlq_presence
1st
t(312.47) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)
2st
t(387.51) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.04)
mlq
1st
t(319.03) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.91)
2st
t(392.44) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.79)
empower
1st
t(298.96) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)
2st
t(373.87) = 1.08, p = 0.281, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.94)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(345.98) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.62)
2st
t(405.13) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.38)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(328.37) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)
2st
t(398.03) = -1.66, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.14)
sss_affective
1st
t(299.58) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(374.62) = -1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.49)
sss_behavior
1st
t(298.80) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(373.67) = -0.52, p = 0.602, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.76)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(297.71) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(372.33) = -0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.86)
sss
1st
t(288.34) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.16)
2st
t(358.86) = -0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.76 to 1.94)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(211.09) = 2.20, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.03 to 0.60)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(190.52) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.39)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(183.69) = 4.54, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (1.16 to 2.95)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(191.25) = 1.80, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.73)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(188.07) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.39)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(184.48) = 2.93, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.18)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(195.48) = 3.61, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.34)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(182.72) = -1.88, p = 0.124, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.93 to 0.07)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(186.76) = 1.42, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.33)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(186.14) = 1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.71)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(182.69) = 2.13, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.31)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(182.16) = 1.44, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.15 to 0.98)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(183.99) = 2.13, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.02)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(182.52) = 1.57, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.94)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(187.29) = 3.77, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.18)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(187.20) = 1.40, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.82)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(185.69) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.22)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(183.35) = 2.19, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.09)
els
1st vs 2st
t(181.69) = 2.77, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.17)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(181.83) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.08 to -1.33)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(180.91) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.72)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(184.73) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.55)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(181.01) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.14)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(203.29) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.34)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(196.40) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.68)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(188.75) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.65)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(191.01) = 1.37, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.16)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(184.11) = 2.47, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.62)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(200.45) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.30 to 1.36)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(194.24) = -3.63, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.69 to -0.50)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(184.32) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.73 to -0.56)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(184.05) = -2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.44 to -0.26)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(183.68) = -3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.44)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(180.44) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.47 to -1.45)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(201.59) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.28)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(185.40) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.35)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(180.03) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.62)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(185.98) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.36)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(183.47) = 1.22, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.88)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(180.64) = 1.45, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.78)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(189.31) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.51)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(179.26) = -2.15, p = 0.066, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.99 to -0.13)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(182.44) = 0.97, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.10)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(181.95) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.12)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(179.24) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.23)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(178.81) = 1.61, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.98)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(180.26) = 1.81, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.78)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(179.10) = 2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.19)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(182.86) = 2.22, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.52)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(182.79) = -0.75, p = 0.907, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.28)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(181.60) = 1.28, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.83)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(179.75) = 1.03, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.75)
els
1st vs 2st
t(178.44) = 1.36, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.45)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(178.56) = -0.97, p = 0.670, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.67)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(177.83) = 0.86, p = 0.780, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.01)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(180.84) = 1.36, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.07)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(177.91) = 1.20, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.95)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(195.45) = -1.15, p = 0.505, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.14)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(190.03) = 2.16, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.39)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(184.01) = 1.46, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.25)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(185.79) = 2.03, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.47)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(180.35) = 2.13, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.43)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(193.22) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.68)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(188.33) = -1.52, p = 0.259, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.13)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(180.52) = -1.43, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.15)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(180.31) = -2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.22 to -0.09)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(180.01) = -1.58, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.11)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(177.46) = -2.05, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.93 to -0.05)